Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Rachaiah on 24 June, 2019
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.380 OF 2015
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.393 OF 2015
IN CRL.R.P. NO.380 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY COD POLICE,
CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 018. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. HONNAPPA,HCGP]
AND:
RACHAIAH,
S/O. LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
R/AT NO.1015,
KANAKA KRUPA, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. J.D.KASHINATH, ADVOCATE]
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.2014 IN S.C. NO.163/2010
2
PASSED BY THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
***
IN CRL.R.P. NO.393 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY COD POLICE,
CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 018. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. HONNAPPA,HCGP]
AND:
1. K.M.NEELAKANTA,
S/O. LATE K.N. MARIGOWDA,
AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.776,
I CROSS ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 086.
2. P.VINOD KUMAR,
S/O. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1585-A, 26TH CROSS ROAD,
30TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI,
2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 050.
3. P.ROHIT,
S/O. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1585-A, 26TH CROSS ROAD,
30TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI,
2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 050.
4. MADHUSUDHAN,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNASWAMY,
AGED 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.154,
6TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
3
R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 040.
5. B.M.MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT COTTENPET,
BENGALURU-560 018. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. M.GAYATHRI RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
AND R5. DR. R.RAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4]
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.09.2014 IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.163/2010 PASSED BY THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE REASON STATED THEREIN.
***
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These revision petitions are filed by the State challenging the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, thereby allowing the applications filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 to 6 respectively under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and discharging them for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of IPC.
2. Crl.R.P. No.380/2015 is filed against the impugned Order dated 23.12.2014 and Crl.R.P. No.393/2015 is filed against the impugned Order dated 04.09.2014, passed 4 in S.C. No.163/2010 on the file of the LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
3. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Honnappa, appearing for the petitioner/State and the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent in the respective petitions.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.2000 at about 7.30 a.m., all the accused formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the first informant and assaulted his son and also abused his wife. Accused No.5 dragged the informant and caused bleeding injuries to him. They damaged the doors of the toilet and forcibly took C.W.2- Mahadevamma and C.W.4-Hirannaiah in a TATA Sumo to Mysuru, wherein accused No.1-Rachaiah criminally intimidated them and threatened them with dire consequences and confined them in room No.19 of Basappa Memorial Hospital from 31.05.2000 to 02.06.2000. Accused No.1 along with the other accused kept C.W.1-complainant, C.W.2-Mahadevamma and C.W.3-Rudraiah in his house at Mysuru and forcibly got executed Agreements for 5 Rs.8,00,000/- and he forcibly took a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from C.Ws.1 and 3.
Charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 7, showing accused No.6 as absconding, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 448, 427, 504, 365, 342, 384, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
During the course of trial proceedings, the learned Prosecutor filed an application under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. to include Section 364-A of IPC., which came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate and since the said offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Court.
The respondents viz., accused Nos.1 to 6 filed separate applications under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge them from the offence under Section 364-A of IPC.
The learned Sessions Judge allowed the applications filed by the accused/respondents herein and discharged them in so far as the offence under Section 364-A of IPC is concerned, which order is under challenge. 6
5. It is the contention of the learned HCGP that C.W.1-complainant has clearly stated that the accused persons have kidnapped the prosecution witnesses and the material on record would disclose that accused No.1 had telephoned Dr.Shivakumar and threatened him with dire consequences that unless he comes to Mysuru they will not release his mother, son and brother. He submits that the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC is clearly made out and therefore, the Court below was not justified in discharging the accused/respondents for the said offence.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the respective petitions would submit that the trial with regard to the main case has already been concluded in C.C. No.2904/2001 on the file of the Court of I Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru and the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused/respondents herein of the charged offences. He further submits that appreciating the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge has discharged the accused of the offence under Section 364-A of IPC and therefore, submits that the present revision petitions may be dismissed. 7
7. The Court below after considering the entire material on record was of the view that there was no demand for any ransom for the release of wife and son of the informant. Obtaining signatures on stamp papers and receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- by the accused from the informant are the events alleged to have occurred subsequent to release of wife and son of the informant from the Hospital. Hence, the same do not come under the purview of demand of ransom for release of wife and son of the informant by the accused. There is no threat of causing hurt or death or apprehension to that effect. Hence, there are no prima-facie material to constitute an offence so as to frame charge against the accused for the offence under Section 364-A of IPC.
8. The Court below has considered the material on record and has come to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC has not been made out. Accordingly, after giving reasons, allowed the application filed by the accused/respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
9. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the trial in respect of the charges framed 8 against the accused has been concluded and all the accused have been acquitted of the charged offence.
10. I have perused the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 16.10.2017 passed in C.C. No.2904/2001 by the I Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru. The learned Magistrate has acquitted accused Nos.1 to 6 holding that they are not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 448, 427, 504, 342, 384, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
For the foregoing reasons, I don't find any merit in the present revision petitions. Both the revision petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksm*